Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreata Global


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Kreata Global
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real evidence for notability  DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Retain. WP:Reliable sources have published or posted stories about this firm, which supports its WP:Notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I said in the previous Afd: "A quick news search reveals sufficient coverage from top caliber sources such as Times of India, Reuters, and the Economic Times to establish notability." --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -Whatever sources are out there, are "announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" -and if excluded per WP:CORPDEPTH -there's no evidence of notability. I think, we are not going to count Times of India, Reuters or Economic times -if they too have coverage on mergers and/or sales related to the subject. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  01:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "routine announcement of mergers/sales" line is not intended to exclude coverage about such business deals (which, together with earnings together, are the heart of business news), but rather brief coverage. Many business publications have long lists of transactions with just a couple lines on each - that is what the guideline aims to exclude.  Full length articles on mergers (which include background material) are just as valid as full length articles on any other aspect of the business. Think about it this way: if an article has 4 paragraphs about a merger and 3 paragraphs of background material, how could that possibly be less relevant than an article with just the same 3 paragraphs (which would be consider in depth coverage)?  The sources here are the latter kind - extensive coverage motivated by a specific event, not brief coverage of the event only.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking a second look at sources and your argument above, I would say that to this point, I am fairly convinced. Thank you! Making my !vote below,


 * Keep -, , , , , etc. kind of sources may satisfy the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG standard. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.